About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
't -- he shouldn't be mirandaized right away. i know you agree with them. >> i think the miranda issue is an easier issue. he doesn't have to be mar lindaized for a lot of reason. first of all, they have enough evidence to convict him without getting a confession from him. all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were pl
, but a gunshot wound to the neck left him unable to speak. it was unclear if he was read his miranda rights. but in washington, white house spokesman jay carney said he's a naturalized u.s. citizen, so he will not face a military tribunal. >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice, under us law. u.s. citizen can not be trialed, tried rather in military commissions. and it's important to remember that since 9-11 we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. >> brown: tsarnaev was also likely to face state charges in the shooting death of a police officer at m.i.t. it all followed his dramatic capture friday evening, when he was found hiding and wounded in a boat behind a home in the boston suburb of watertown. his older brother tamarlen died hours earlier in a shoot-out with police that triggered the all-day manhunt and shut down the city. yesterday, on cbs, massachusetts governor deval patrick stood by the unprecedented measures. >> i think people understood that we were
okayed the suspension of the suspect's miranda rights. is that a temporary suspension? >> reporter: yes, by law it is. it's called the public safety exception to the miranda rule. normally you have to tell someone they have a right to remain silent and if you don't, then you can't use anything they tell you in court. so that's why the miranda warning is given. but there is an exception. you don't have to do it if there's a possible threat to public safety. and here obviously there's a concern about whether there are potential accomplices. investigators say they haven't found any. or other explosives. they say they haven't found any of those either but that's what they want to ask him. and this exception probably begins to expire the moment you invoke it so it's probably no good for more than a day or two but nonetheless they can do that. afterwards they'll have to give him his miranda warning and say whether he'll continue to answer questions. the justice department says even in very serious cases like this, most people in custody do continue to talk. >> pete, who's going to be interrog
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4